Debates of Oct. 29th, 2012

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the wonderful observations in his speech.

Along with the gutting of environmental legislation, particularly with respect to lakes and rivers, I notice that the government is withdrawing its support for the Experimental Lakes Area, one of the world's most pristine environmentally protected areas. It has allowed tremendous research on mercury in rivers, the effects of global warming, acid rain, et cetera.

It only costs $2 million a year to maintain the Experimental Lakes Area. Clearly, giving up that asset is of no benefit. In fact, it is emasculating any opportunity we have to conduct important environmental research.

I wonder if the member could enlighten us a little more on the removal of funding from the Experimental Lakes Area by the Conservative government through the budget bill.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes to what I was saying about the fear of dissenting opinion. Science, for the most part, is not always very supportive of the business and commercial end of an idea.

I think this withdrawal of support goes to the image, for lack of a better way of putting it, of the government taking the side of business and profit making over sound science. However, Canadians benefit both from the economy as well as science and learning.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the environment.

As we know, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act mean that thousands of waterways will no longer be protected.

One unprotected waterway runs into another waterway and so on. Sooner or later, that water makes its way into the water table or the ocean. What impact does my colleague think this will have on future generations and on sustainable development?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is the crux of the problem. Does it speed up the economic reasons for a company or organization wanting to build over an unprotected lake by not having this Navigable Waters Protection Act in place?

It would create a situation where business has the opportunity to weigh its own interests on whether to circumvent prevention and protection laws or needs.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Since 2006, our government has supported the security and prosperity of all Canadians, promoted Canadian businesses and made investments in job creation. When the global economic crisis hit, the previous actions by our government helped Canada avoid a deep and long-lasting recession.

Our government's response to the crisis was both timely and targeted, and was one of the strongest responses to the global recession among the G7 countries. However the recovery process is not complete, and there are many challenges and uncertainties still confronting our economy today.

Bill C-45 takes important and strategic steps to address these challenges and ensure the sustainability of public finances and social programs for both current and future generations. In Bill C-45, our government is focusing on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity through investments in business, infrastructure, trade, families and communities.

All Canadians are sure to benefit from the provisions in Bill C-45, as I will outline in my remaining time.

Our government believes it is important to assist small Canadian businesses so they can focus on what matters: growth and job creation. We are doing this by extending the hiring credit for small business. This is a temporary credit of up to $1,000 that helps alleviate the costs of additional hiring for approximately 536,000 employees. This will reduce the 2012 payroll costs of small business by approximately $205 million, an astonishing saving that I know small businesses in my riding of Oxford will appreciate.

This initiative is in addition to our commitment to small business owners to reduce red tape by implementing the one-for-one rule; reducing the administrative tax burden on small businesses by enhancing the Canada Revenue Agency's my business account portal; and doubling the threshold for eligibility to use the GST-HST streamlined accounting methods; and enhancing the predictability of the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. It is good news all around for small business owners.

Our government understands the important role that Canadian farmers play in our country. They not only provide nutritious and delicious food for Canadians and people around the world, but they also provide numerous job opportunities for the Canadian economy. The importance of farmers and their contributions to society can be seen in my riding of Oxford. Every season, we are lucky to enjoy the various fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy products that our Oxford farmers produce.

Oxford and Canadian farmers will be happy to hear that in budget 2012 we are assisting hard-working farmers by investing $50 million to help Canadian farmers remain on the cutting edge of agricultural innovations. We are also providing tax relief to reduce the costs of new investments in processing machinery and equipment, and $24 million to fund national biosecurity and best practices initiatives to combat hog diseases.

In Bill C-45 our government is also making amendments to the Canada Grain Act to streamline and update the operation of the Canadian Grain Commission by reducing costs and better aligning the commission with the needs of the grain sector. This includes a $44 million investment as the commission continues to transition to a more sustainable funding model. This will create a more competitive environment for our farmers and improve their bottom line. No matter what type of farming Canadians are employed in, they will surely benefit from the support of our government.

The Canadian manufacturing industry and its workers is one of the key engines of Canada's economy, as it represents a vital source of jobs and economic growth for many communities, including my riding of Oxford.

Since 2006, our government has proudly supported the manufacturing sector by lowering business taxes to 15%, eliminating the job-killing corporate surtax and introducing the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance tax relief to help manufacturers become more competitive when upgrading their machinery and equipment.

The manufacturing sector has seen strong results due to our government support, and this can be seen in my riding of Oxford.

In March of this year, Toyota announced that it would be increasing Rav4 production at its Woodstock plant from 150,000 annual capacity to 200,000. This increase will result in 400 new jobs. That is great news for the people of Oxford and the Canadian economy as a whole.

I might say there will be a fine announcement at the CAMI GM plant in Oxford tomorrow about a milestone that the plant has reached.

On this side of the House we want to continue with these types of results with the implementation of budget 2012. That is why we are investing $500 million to support venture capital activities, extending the domestic powers of Export Development Canada to provide financing to support Canadian manufacturers and other exporters and $110 million to double support to manufacturers and other entrepreneurs through the industrial research assistance program.

I look forward to hearing many more success stories that are sure to come as we continue to support our manufacturers with budget 2012.

In addition to our government's investments in key industries, we are also facilitating increased trade by strengthening the Trade Act. Bill C-45 would facilitate the construction of the urgently needed bridge along Canada's most important trade artery, the Windsor-Detroit corridor.

Our government will continue to work closely with the state of Michigan, the United States government and the province of Ontario on the Detroit River international crossing project. This project is consistent with the Government of Canada's economic agenda, given its importance for Canada's long-term economic prosperity, growing international trade and investment and the creation of jobs.

The new border crossing will facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the U.S. by ensuring that there is sufficient border crossing capacity to handle projected growth in cross-border trade and traffic in the Windsor-Detroit trade corridor. It will also provide a much needed crossing alternative to the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing and create thousands of jobs and opportunities on both sides of the border, while at the same time ensuring border security and safety. Canadians can be sure that our government will always support beneficial trade opportunities for the Canadian economy.

Our government is also ensuring the safety of all Canadians by updating the Customs Act. As part of the beyond the border action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness, the Government of Canada is working to better screen travellers so security threats can be stopped ahead of time. The changes to the Customs Act will support the interactive advance passenger information initiative outlined in the action plan. This initiative will allow the Canada Border Security Agency to take steps to prevent high-risk or improperly documented travellers from boarding a plane destined for Canada, which will also reduce costs associated with removing inadmissible individuals from Canada.

We are also implementing the integrated cargo security initiative, which will harmonize the security requirements for cargo between Canada and the United States. The pre-screening of cargo will help save time for both businesses and the government by significantly reducing the need for re-inspection of cargo between the two countries and will ensure that high-risk cargo does not reach Canada. Our government is protecting Canadians both at home and abroad.

Families are the cornerstone of Canadian society. Our government believes in supporting families and that is why we have made huge investments since 2006 to help families save money and live healthier and happier lives. We have done this through the introduction of various initiatives, including the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the family caregiver tax credit, the first time homebuyers tax credit, the registered disability savings plan, the working income tax benefit and the child tax credit.

Due to our government's strong record of tax relief, a Canadian family is now saving over $3,100, a truly amazing saving. Families can use their savings toward investments, vacations, education or recreation. The possibilities are just endless.

In Bill C-45 we are helping families by improving the registered disability savings plan, helping Canadians save for retirement by implementing a tax framework for pooled registered pension plans and improving the administration of the Canada pension plan.

We are also respecting taxes paid by our hard-working Canadian families by taking landmark action to ensure that the pension plans for members of Parliament, senators and federal public sector employees are financially responsible and broadly consistent with the pension products offered by other jurisdictions as well as fair relative to those offered in the private sector.

We are closing tax loopholes that have been open for far too long and eliminating duplication to ensure that Canadian taxpayer dollars are put to good use.

I am proud of the investments and initiatives that our government is putting in place in Bill C-45. We are getting things done for Canadians as we focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. I encourage all members to join us as we support Canadians by voting in favour of Bill C-45.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the changes being made to the Canada Grain Act. He may not be aware but hundreds of jobs in inward inspection are going to be lost. The people doing those jobs ensure that western wheat going out for either domestic consumption or export coming to port or at different linkages throughout is both the quality and quantity that farmers want it to be. As inward inspection goes as a result of Bill C-45, the concern is not only will hundreds of jobs be lost, but farmers will be short-changed. That is really a concept that stands in polar opposition to what the member said.

I would be keen to hear him comment on the real facts of the changes to the Grain Act.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the real consequences of the changes to the Grain Act are there has never been more grain moved in Canada and there has never been more money come back into Canada as a result of those changes.

Farmers finally have a choice and it truly is an opportunity. This is a country of choice and for far too long farmers had absolutely no choice.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it always confounds me, and I think Canadians as a whole, that whenever the Conservative government talks about prosperity, it is always at the expense of the environment. It has gutted environmental legislation under Bill C-38 and it will do it again in Bill C-45. It is getting rid of legislation that protects our lakes and rivers, reducing it to a mere less than 100 lakes and less than 100 rivers that will remain protected. It is getting rid of its investment in the Environmental Lakes Area. This is a pristine area, used for study. There is nowhere like it in the world, except Canada. It costs a mere $2 million a year to maintain the area.

Why does the government feel it necessary to emasculate environmental legislation in the hope of thinking that it is somehow going to generate prosperity?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rather interesting comment. The member starts off by saying that Conservatives are always doing all this damage to the environment. I wish he would turn around to the hon. member sitting behind him and ask who was identified as the greenest prime minister in the history of the country. He would find it was a Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney.

His colleague behind him would be more than happy to tell the member about that. The acid rain treaty, signed under that prime minister's time, is landmark. Some of these things that he is talking about are really beyond the pale in many respects to the issue.

I looked at the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The member is the critic for agriculture. Finally, farmers now have something with which they can deal with their drainage ditches and small bridges in rural Ontario and Canada. It is high time we moved to some of these things.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I will first clarify and answer the question from the member for Churchill. Farmers were actually consulted on this change. Farmers actually want this change. Farmers, when they deliver their grain, they no longer own it. Therefore, it does not make any sense for farmers to be paying for inward inspection. It is that simple. I would encourage her to speak to some farmers.

The hon. member just spoke very briefly about the importance of the Detroit river international crossing. I know it is close to his region. He probably has a better understanding than I do of how important it is. Could he explain a bit more about the importance of that crossing that we are working on in this budget implementation act?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all think our ridings are unique. Oxford has a lot of agricultural products, a lot of which are exported to the United States. More important, we have two automotive plants, a Toyota plant and a GM Cami plant. They export 90% of their product to the United States. When those bridges are tied up, that bridge in particular, the costs are astronomical. It slows down production and hinders job opportunities for Canadians. This budget is about that. It is about job opportunities, employment for Canadians and fairness.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45.

I want to focus a little on the environmental impacts of various provisions, but I want to start with what concerns me to a great deal.

The bill is supposed to be all about creating jobs and generating prosperity. In fact, anybody who has been able to obtain some information from the government, which it is loath to releasing, any of the experts, the PBO for example, on the impact of the provisions of the budget bill that was brought down last spring has estimated we would be looking at nearly 100,000 jobs lost as a direct result of the implementation of this particular bill.

Not only that, the government would be making widespread wholesale changes to environmental protections that exist in various legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Review Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Act. A number of pieces of legislation that provide oversight for projects, for development, for activity throughout the country, will be removed and that causes considerable concern.

Listening to members opposite talk about the bridge over the Detroit River or other projects, I hearken back to the Sydney tar ponds. I heard today in the news that the last contract has been awarded for the cleanup of the tar ponds in Sydney.

The tar ponds is a notable environmental spot that resulted from steel making over more than 100 years in Sydney, in Cape Breton. Government after government felt that it was sufficient to make steel to create jobs to do whatever we wanted to do with the environment, to get rid of waste, to spoil the earth, the air and the water. Rivers were completely ruined and covered up as a result of what the steel making process did.

Nearly $500 million of taxpayer money was taken, not the people who actually made off like bandits as a result of the opportunity to make steel in Cape Breton over those 100-and-some-odd years. It was the taxpayers who ended up paying as a result of the fact that government after government, both federally and provincially, failed to provide the oversight.

It feels to me like we are going back to the future. We are rolling back the clock in our country. The government has decided that it wants to export oil and bitumen and it will see those pipelines built, over as many water courses as needs to happen, as quickly as possible, without any oversight. That causes me and members on this side some considerable concern.

Not only does the government bring in this second omnibus bill, which we are going to be forced, with one set of votes, to vote on, rumour has it that it is going to break off some of the provisions in the bill and send them to committee, but we still are going be faced with one bill that we will be voting for or against at the end of the day.

As a result of public pressure, the government is going to allow for greater discussion. However, it is clear that the Conservatives have no intention of making any changes to the bill. That is why members on this side continue to move motions to try to get the government to split off some important aspects of the bill.

One issue that is particularly burdensome and troublesome with the bill is the change, in fact the removal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canada has over 32,000 lakes and rivers, and under this proposed budget bill only 97 lakes and 62 rivers are identified as significant. Why is that important? I heard a member opposite a moment ago say that the changes made to this act were important for farmers so they could plow over ditches in their field. It has nothing to do with ditches. That was the first budget bill last spring when that was allowed to happen; it allowed developers and others to get bulldozers and plow over the ditches.

This has to do with lakes and rivers. It is going to leave thousands of waterways without protection. Conservatives are even walking away from the majority of Canada's 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers. That means that a couple of heritage rivers in Nova Scotia, one of them being the Margaree, which is part of Margaree-Lake Ainslie River system, where Atlantic salmon and trout flourish in incredibly pristine water, could potentially be allowed to have roads, bridges or other projects that interfere with this river and this watershed without the requirement for permits.

It is the same thing for the Shelburne River, which begins in the Tobeatic wilderness park. It is part of the Mersey River system. It is an important river system for the Mi'kmaw. It has been used for millennia, and now it is no longer under protection. The government does not seem to understand how important these rivers, lakes and the environment are to Canadians. Our job on this side is to make those points and to bring that information to the attention of Canadians. As I indicated earlier, we are going to do that by continuing to move motions to try to split off various portions of the bill, so not only do they get proper debate, but they get an opportunity to have a vote.

My time is nearly over. I want to move a motion. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 173 to 178 related to changes to the fisheries act be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the fisheries act and the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act; that bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am proposing this motion as indicated so we will have the opportunity, not only to discuss the changes being proposed, debate them and hear witnesses, but to have an opportunity to vote on these specific amendments. I, therefore, request said unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for drawing attention to the seemingly inexplicable choices of what rivers are now covered by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to be renamed the navigation protection act, and what ones are abandoned. Clearly, something in the order of 98% to 99% of all internal waterways in Canada are now to see a full-on retreat from federal constitutional authority. The provinces cannot step up to fill the void because of constitutional law; only the federal government is responsible for navigation on waterways in this country. Yet, members of the Conservative Party who speak in the House tell us not to worry, Canadian common law will still apply to protect navigation. That means if people want to protect their rights to use the waterways, they have to go to court.

What does the hon. member think of that?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing to do with respect to these important watercourses and waterways, I find appalling. I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of organizations. I was in Alberta this past weekend where I had the opportunity to talk to an organization that is concerned about the watershed it is responsible for. In particular, the Bow River will be covered under this particular act but the Oldman River will not, and the two are completely interconnected. People are asking themselves what the rationale is behind this and, more importantly, what the damage is going to be as a result of this legislation and the removal of oversight and protection.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has highlighted a number of key issues to the BIA. My question is on employment, which he referenced as a major issue.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated that this budget would cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs and that the budget actually plans for unemployment to rise. If we combine that with the previous rounds of cuts, the PBO projects a total of 102,000 jobs lost. I wonder if my colleague could comment on this.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, provisions of this bill are particularly onerous for the reasons he cited, in terms of the direct jobs that are going to be lost.

The other part of the bill really puts it to workers. Whether we call them private sector or public sector workers, they are workers who are supporting families, communities and making a contribution to the economy of this country. The government, as a result of changes to the pension plan for public sector workers is in effect rolling back wages. Pensions are nothing but foregone wages. That is exactly what they are. They are freely negotiated, and there are trade-offs made during negotiations. Pensions are part of the compensation package. What the government is asking us to do is to unilaterally impose a rollback in the area of 25% to 30% on public sector workers in this country.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say they held public consultations regarding this bill. If the Conservatives had consulted first nations, such as the Mi'kmaq people in my colleague's riding, does he think they would have agreed with the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, for instance?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely perfect question because I have talked with the officials at the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, the traditional governing structure for the Mi'kmaq in the Atlantic provinces, and there has not been any consultation.

Likewise, I spoke to the Thames River watershed conservation society on Thursday of last week, which is responsible for 410 kilometres of watershed as a volunteer organization. It has not been consulted.

I spoke to Trout Unlimited Canada on Friday in Alberta. It had not been consulted about the changes to the act that directly affect its area of interest. In the case of the aboriginal community, the changes directly affect its treaty and aboriginal rights.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to be able to put some comments on the record. When we listen to all of the speeches, I understand that the role of opposition members is to criticize the government and to try very hard to get elected in the next election. However, a stronger role for all of us in the House is to pay very close attention to what will build and support our country.

Over 820,000 new jobs have been created since July 2009. Our country has the strongest job creation record in the G7. That is amazing. For the fifth straight year, the World Economic Forum rated our banking system the world's best. That is significant.

When we look to other countries, the reason they are facing horrendous economic downturns is because decisions were made that were neither in their best interests at the time nor in the future. As well, no planning went on in some of the countries and others were continually overspending.

If we look at Canada, we are living in a nation where people are living well, although there are significant challenges for all communities. Having said that, it is incredible that for the fifth straight year the World Economic Forum has rated our banking system as the world's best. Also, all major credit rating agencies, such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's, have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating in this worldwide economic downturn.

Yet I sit in the House and hear over and over again about the NDP's job-killing carbon tax. I know that page 12 of the NDP's platform clearly highlighted that it would put a price on carbon. Therefore, this whole interchange in Parliament has been about the criticism of this government's handling of the economy. The opposition is blind to the factual information that has come not from members opposite but from global leaders and entities across the world who are praising Canada as the world's economic leader.

The NDP carbon tax would raise the price of everything that Canadians buy. I want to repeat that. The NDP—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we have been going back and forth, but people who stand up and repeat misinformation and make things up are lowering the standard. If the member does not know the difference between what a—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for James Bay has been up on this point earlier today. I have ruled on this particular intervention, as have previous Chair occupants. The member will know that the ruling is that it is a debate as to the matter of facts. This is common in the course of debate in the chamber.

I would seek the member's co-operation that, unless he has a specific point of order as set out in the Standing Orders, he choose not to intervene when other members have the floor.

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.